Language desk
< October 2	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 3

Caramell lyrics

Can someone give me the lyrics of these songs from Caramell: Skattjakt, Bara Vänner, Telefon, Ett & Två. I'd do it myself, but I don't speak Swedish, nor do I understand most of the phonetics involved. Also, I can't seem to find even the Swedish lyrics anywhere on the internet, so just the swedish will do just fine. 72.235.221.120 (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is satis dicto the proper ablative absolute...?

...of "enough having been said"? μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any reason why it wouldn't be... AnonMoos (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, satis can be an adjective or a noun, but it's also an adverb, and it seems strange (to me, anyway) to use it as a substantive in an ablative absolute. I wonder "enough what?" Is there a full sentence that this is part of, for context? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, nevermind, apparently Livy and Tacitus, at least, do use satis in ablative absolutes. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What was throwing me off is the fact that satis is indeclinable, which makes me feel like I'm getting away with something. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic dialectology: Is ج (ǧīm) ever a solar letter?

In Arabic, a sun letter is a letter representing a coronal consonant, which causes an assimilation of the L of the definite article al- and produces a geminated consonant together with it, the L itself being likewise a coronal sound. However, ǧīm has no effect on the L and is therefore classified as a moon letter. The reason is that the letter represented non-coronal /ɡʲ/ or /ɟ/ in Classical Arabic. Beginners in MS Arabic, if taught that ǧīm is pronounced [d͡ʒ], might expect just the contrary. My question is: Is there today any variety of Arabic where ǧīm has adopted the behaviour of a sun letter? In some varieties it is realised as coronal ([d͡ʒ] or [ʒ]); having turned into a coronal fricative or affricate, ج essentially perfectly matches the characteristics of, and the very definition for, a sun letter. --Theurgist (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. Whether it is pronunced as 'J' or 'G', it still wouldn't assimilate the 'L'. Ghayn, for example, is also a moon letter. --Soman (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the symbol "ǧ" comes from a German library-cataloging standard, and is not very usual or typical for English-language transcriptions of Arabic... AnonMoos (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Soman: Sun letters are the letters standing for coronal consonants, i.e. consonants articulated with the flexible front part of the tongue, just like L is. The ghayn represents a dorsal sound (produced with the back part of the tongue), that's why ghayn is a moon letter.

@AnonMoos: True, the most widespread English transcription of the letter maybe is "j", because it is apparently most often associated with the J-sound in English. But, as far as I can tell, Wikipedia uses the German standard DIN 31635 as a standard scientific transliteration of Arabic, e.g. in WP:IPA for Arabic or in articles about individual letters. --Theurgist (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't (see WP:MOSAR or Arabic alphabet etc.). One particular user has attempted to introduce the German library-cataloging standard (which is not more "scientific"[sic] than a number of other transcription conventions) wherever he can, but he really does not represent any established consensus in doing that. I've already gotten into enough conflicts with that user just from pages that were already on my watchlist without following him around to other pages (something I don't have any real desire to do), but any standardization or harmonization of Wikipedia pages would almost certainly result in the dropping of "ǧ" in most cases, if consensus were followed... AnonMoos (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether/if

I get confused by the use of whether/if sometimes. My basic rule was: if you can put 'or not' at the end, the use 'whether'. However, I find sentences like "I spend a lot of time thinking about If I want to join the soccer team or not." written by native speakers and start thinking. Could it be that the sentence is wrong? Or not written by a native speaker? If yes, then, could it be that native speakers are sometimes confused by the use of whether/if? Quest09 (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Native speakers do often use "if" in these contexts. It's regarded as incorrect in formal English. I change it to "whether" if I notice it in Wikipedia, but I'm sure I often say it myself in informal speech. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, the rule is right, after all? (at least for 'correct' English). Quest09 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but be aware that "if" for "whether" is very common indeed. "Less" for "fewer" is a similar example. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Substituting if for whether after a preposition (such as about in your example) is worse than doing so after a verb (such as know in I know if I want ... for I know whether I want ...).

—Wavelength (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Writing archaic speech

I wish for one character in a story I'm writing to use archaic speech. Something in the style of Shakespeare or Horo from Spice and Wolf. I found some information on Google, but not a lot, and I'm not sure I can trust them (they often seem to mix up 'thee' and 'thou', so who knows what else is off). Now there's no need for what I write to be 100% grammatically correct, but I would at least like to avoid the most common mistakes. So does anyone know of a way to learn to write archaic speech, aside from reading Shakespearian works? A guide would be greatly appreciated too. Thanks84.198.182.236 (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.182.236 (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article Early Modern English and its sources will be useful to you. I doubt there's very much material for teaching people how to write EME themselves (active knowledge); most information is for teaching people how to understand what they read (passive knowledge). Other readily available source texts in EME besides Shakespeare include the King James Bible and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Angr (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. After growing up reading and listening to the last two sources above, I find that I'm rather good at it. Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The American Standard Version has been semi-notorious for attempting to write in a quasi-17th-century style, and sometimes not doing a very good job... AnonMoos (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some hints:

Don't use modern contractions. Say "speak not" rather than "don't speak".
Don't use the progressive forms with -ing. Say "the sun rises", not "the sun is rising." (If you absolutely must, you can say the sun is a-rising.)
Invert your verbs to make questions: "Speak you French?" "Speak you not English?"
If you use thou, make sure it is only when addressing one person, not many. Use thou, thee and thy to correspond as subject object and possessive just like I, me and my.
Use mine and thine before vowels, in the same place where you would use an. Mine eyes. Thine answer.
Don't say where to or where from, say whither and whence. (And hither and hence, thither and thence.
"Whence comes thine anger?" not "Where is your anger coming from?"
"Will" means want. "Want" means need. Use the simple present with an adverb of time to indicate the future:
The boat for America departs in the spring. Not, The boat for America will be departing in the spring.

μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be riseth, cometh, and departeth rather than rises, comes, and departs. Also be careful not to use thou, thee, or thy/thine, when your character is addressing another character either above your character in status or equal to your character but not on intimate terms. The forms thou, thee, and thy/thine were reserved for intimate acquaintances and inferiors. For non-intimates and superiors, the otherwise plural forms ye, you, and your would be used. See T-V distinction. Marco polo (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing E. R. Eddison did in The Worm Ouroboros was to lift actual speeches from minor Elizabethan plays and work them into his story as speeches by his characters. You might try that. Deor (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd person -eth forms are awkward to read and mostly died out earlier than the above phenomena: "What light from yonder window breaketh?" Methinketh not. μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as an easy rule of thumb, thou when on a first name basis without title. I.e., not to Sir Richard unless that is what you call your husband. μηδείς (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about 2nd person -st? "Thou have" looks very very strange indeed to me. - filelake shoe 21:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, watch out for the corrupt Quaker use of "thee has" (see Mary Steenburgen in Nixon) instead of "thou hast", etc., . μηδείς (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Rise of [xxx] was meteoric'

How can this phrase make any sense? I was in my local Wetherspoon today, reading their magazine, and it talked about the rise of a certain beer being 'meteoric'. As far as I know, meteors only come down. The Earth doesn't shoot rocks into the sky, only in the case of an impact, in which case, I doubt the survivors would be calling the resultant expulsion of rock 'meteors', unless they were coming back down again. What is the origin of this contradictory phrase? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, meteors are fast, and shoot across the sky. Let's go way back to thought before the advent of modern science. Fixed stars will explain that the heavens were thought not to move at all, and objects didn't just fall from the sky - in fact, the sky was literally unchanging. So, if you have this mindset, where do comets and meteors come from? Must be the Earth, then. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it isn't particularly logical - though Chambers says that 'meteoric' is sometimes used figuratively to mean 'rapid', which makes some sense of the phrase. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guessed it was to do with the speed. However, the direction is exactly the opposite of what the phrase is normally used to mean, at least here anyway. I can understand a 'meteoric decline in popularity', but a 'meteoric rise' just makes no sense, unless you only think of the speed, and not the usual (i.e. actual) direction. Etymonline gives 'meteoric' as being 'transiently brilliant' (from 1836), but this does not make sense in context. Why would a company advertise their product as only having transient success? I really would like to know where it was first used in this sense I saw today. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meteors are about the fastest thing most people will ever see moving in real life. The phrase is fine in almost all contexts except perhaps poetry or very formal style where word choice goes beyond usual scrutiny. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you watch a meteor shower, the meteors appear to radiate from a point in space. In fact, this is the point, as seen from the ground, where a body of meteors enters Earth's atmosphere. Some of those meteors, seen from the ground, appear to fly upward from the point where they enter Earth's atmosphere, because they are on a trajectory over the viewer's head, even as they are descending toward a point on Earth's surface behind the viewer's head. (In fact, the vast majority burn up before they reach the surface.) The apparent movement of meteors is just like the apparent movement of other objects in the sky, such as planes, which seem to rise toward the zenith as they fly toward an observer. So, from the point of view of a person on Earth's surface, some meteors do seem to rise rapidly. Marco polo (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Quinion wrote a pretty good response to someone who wrote him about the exact apparent oxymoron that KageTora has brought up. Deor (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so reading that, it would seem that 'meteoric rise' does in fact mean a transient rise, followed by a fall? Why would a modern writer use it to mean 'a skyrocket-like rise'? This is what the article seemed to say, as it was about a beer that enjoys popularity more and more even now. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The modern usage of meteor is not the original one. See this etymology. It originally had nothing to do with falling things, and instead refered to any phenomenon in the sky. A "meteoric rise" thus originally meant "a rise as high as the sky" as in, as high as one can get. --Jayron32 18:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so I suppose this is a case of having to see one, and ignoring the reality whilst appreciating the apparent reality of it, to understand the usage of the phrase? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I said, you have to look at it from the version of reality that existed before the modern scientific era in order to understand the mindset of the people who first coined the phrase. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand now. It's a bit like saying 'my dog was run over by a car, and it's as flat as the rest of the world...' . Well, at least, every time I hear the phrase 'meteoric rise' (or variations thereof), it will have an effect, which is what it is supposed to do, however the effect will be different from what was intended, and the conversation will spark a (probably one-sided) debate on whether the use of the word is correct, and in whose reality is it correct. Don't invite me to a party, Tammy, I'll bore you all to death KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, KageTora, the usage is not completely archaic. After all, the term meteorology is a modern term, and it is basically the study of the sky. While it does concern itself sometimes with things that fall (like rain, snow), it is also concerned with things that never really fall (jet streams, humidity). The use of "meteor" in "meteorology" just means "sky", as in "the study of the sky". --Jayron32 12:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the German "kometenhafter Aufstieg" (meteoric rise, cometlike rise, stellar rise) the concept seems to date back to pre-modern concepts of meteors, comets and stars. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tagalog

can anyone translate this to english 'pang ilang presidente si noynoy aquino'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.129 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate says this: [1]. --Jayron32 18:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can you write it down, dont have access to google, sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"some other president Aquino" is what Google says. I don't know what that means in the context of the original work the sentence came from, but there you go. --Jayron32 18:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the answer, but it doesnt make sense sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on where it came from, it may well not make sense. Just imagine for an instant that you put "it came from, it may well" into the Google translator. Are you certain that the phrase of origin is the complete and entire sentence? That is one reason why stating the context can often help. Otherwise, I found this, which may or may not help. I don't know how reliable it is, but it gives "What number president was Noynoy Aquino?" as the translation. Is this what you are looking for? Note: The language is possibly Tagalog, from which this website gives several translations. Falconus^{p t c} 20:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know tagalog but it's a language in the Philippines. The 15th and current president of the Philippines is Benigno Aquino III, also known as Noynoy Aquino. A Google search shows that many have asked for an English translation of this. I wonder whether it is a textbook exercise. We are not supposed to do your homework for you but you can find out what others have said by entering "pang ilang presidente si noynoy aquino" in a search engine like http://google.com. It's apparently a question and I may have given the answer. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i speak tagalog, and i really dont know how to translate it in english, it is not a homework, its just really hard to translate in english, atleast for all the people i know, and i can say we speak english pretty well. That phrase is a question, the answer to that is noynoy is the 15th president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.1 (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For English-speakers (and no, I don't think this is a homework question), it literally means "At how much President is Noynoy Aquino?" But the concept of the question itself is something that is nonexistent in English. It asks for Aquino's ordinal position among the presidents. The correct answer would have been "He is the 15th President of the Philippines." just to give you an idea of what the question is about.

Another example: "Pang-ilang anak ka?" means "At how much child are you?", with the possible answers of "I am the middle child", "I am the firstborn.", "I am the youngest.", etc.

The concept is present in other languages as well, like in South Asian languages... just not in English. The closest you can get without over-explaining the question is "How many Presidents were there before Noynoy Aquino?" or "Which president was Noynoy Aquino?" -- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: even a language as close to English as German has this concept: "Der wievielte Präsident ist Noynoy Aquino?", "Das wievielte Kind war Abraham Lincoln?" --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 11:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found this proposal in wiktionary by a native Tamil speaker. It seems, this is quite a common problem for languages which can ask that kind of question.

His proposed word was "numberth" (cf. "nth"), heh. Which as it turns out, was already invented for English out of necessity in mathematics. But it's still rather awkward. I'm curious how native English speakers phrase this kind of questions. If they do, that is.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Americans, at least, would tend to ask "Which president [in order] was Aquino?", with the "in order" being included or omitted at the speaker's option; or possibly "What number president was Aquino?", although it would come across as ungrammatical. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, still not something you can phrase formally. But at least you got spared those kinds of questions in school. :P -- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah; we'd get quizzed on "Who was the 15th President of the United States?" instead (James Buchanan, by the way). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish also has a word for this: Monesko presidentti on Noynoy Aquino? JIP | Talk 16:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a friend suggested,'what is president nonoy aquino's ordinal rank?' is this good?

Sushi vs. zushi

Why is sushi called sushi with an "s" but specific varieties are called "makizushi", "nigirizushi", etc. with a "z"? JIP | Talk 18:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the "s" becomes voiced when it occurs between two vowels, changing the sound from an "s" to a "z". This is pretty common in Japanese, and I think (though I am not a speaker of the language at all) that it is called Rendaku, or a related phenomenon. --Jayron32 18:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can verify that. In compound words, such as 'makizushi' (rolled sushi), the 's' becomes a 'z' because of the preceding vowel. That article is not well written, as it starts off telling you when it is not used, rather than when it is (which is more rare). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sushi already covers this question. Quoted from Sushi#Type, "In spelling sushi its first letter s is replaced with z when a prefix is attached, as in nigirizushi, due to consonant mutation called rendaku in Japanese." --Kusunose 02:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cavan Orphanage Fire

In the article Cavan Orphanage Fire, should two names be referred to as "Mr McNally" and "Mr Kennedy", or just McNally and Kennedy? I'm thinking that maybe this is a variation in English usage, thus falling under guidelines such as WP:ENGVAR. Bus stop (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The generally accepted practice on WP seems to be to just use surnames. Not sure which guideline has this in it though... - filelake shoe 21:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline can be found in the first sentence at WP:SURNAME. Deor (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr is usually only used in direct address or if the first name is unknown or to contrast with some other title. In this case it should be deleted, we already know their names. μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, all. Bus stop (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen lots of older news articles refer to Mr. Lastname when referring to people, so I think it's not wrong to do so; it's just outdated. Dropping the "Mr.", as has been said, is probably the best option in most cases. Falconus^{p t c} 10:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a time when public figures were always "Mr/Mrs/Miss Name" in radio and TV news broadcasts and in newspapers. But that rule never applied in encyclopedias even then. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times is one of the newspapers that still does. Lesgles (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which led to them mentioning a certain Rocky Horror star and singer as "Mr. Loaf" during an article about him. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what is it about the American practice of always calling female actors "Miss Name", even the Liz Taylors of the world [2], [3], who were as far removed from "Miss" status as it's possible to get. In this day and age when women are generally neither Miss nor Mrs, but Ms, Miss Name still gets used, but only for actresses, never for politicians, scientists, writers, or any other occupation. I've seen many editors on WP talk pages fawning insufferably over their favourite actresses in this way, but only actresses. Have actresses become the latter day royalty, deserving of a special appellation?-- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That must be a linguistic perversion of the movie/gossip press, or of aging fans who are stuck in the 1920s mindset. I never see it in the ordinary mainstream press reports that I read. In the case of Taylor, it might be theorized that linguistic conservatives were trapped by the fact that she retained her original name for her professional work; she could not be "Mrs. Taylor" since when she was a Mrs. she was Mrs. Fisher or Burton or Hilton or whatever. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times banned "Ms." from its pages for many years, but that policy finally broke down in 1984, when Geraldine Ferraro ran for vice-president, and to refer to her as "Miss Ferraro" seemed quite absurd (considering that she had been married for over 20 years at that point, and was a mother of three), while to refer to her as "Mrs. Zaccaro" would have been to call her by a name that she simply was not known by in her public political life (by 1984, a newspaper forcing the name Zaccaro onto her would have seemed like a strange regression to the 1950s). The only other possibility -- "Mrs. Ferraro" -- would not have been correct according to either feminist usage or 1950s traditionalism... AnonMoos (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, reality wins out over prescription. Thanks for that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quel que vs. quoi que

In French, what difference (if any) is there between quel que and quoi que? Both are defined as whatever as far as I have seen, and the only major difference appears to be that quel que must agree with the following noun. What is the proper usage of these two expressions? Inter change able|talk to me 21:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quel is a determiner (like an adjective); it modifies a noun. Quoi is a simple pronoun; it is the object (or complement) of a verb. "Quelle que soit la question, je n'y répondrai pas." "Quoi que tu fasses, tu ne peux pas t'échapper." Lesgles (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So quel que must be followed by a verb (être?), but quoi que must be followed by a verb. Inter change able|talk to me 00:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quel que is followed by être and a noun, but quoi que is followed by a clause with a noun/pronoun and a transitive verb. Quel(les) que soi(en)t le/la/les NOUN; quoi que PRONOUN/NOUN VERB (it could be inverted, though: quoi que fasse le docteur, il ne la guérira pas). Usually, if you can replace what by which or what kind of in English, you should use quel in French. In "No matter what (kind of) book it is, I won't read it", use quel que. But in "no matter what he eats, he doesn't gain weight", you can't make the replacement, so you use quoi que. Lesgles (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Lesgles' original two sentences, "quelle" modifies "question", but "quoi" does not modify anything... AnonMoos (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That just confuses me more, and now I really don't understand. As I had understood it until Lesgles' second post, quel que is the subject but quoi que is the object. And what if a verb other than être is needed? Take for example the sentence "Whatever may guard the castle, we will attack it"? Would it be correct to say Quel(le[s]) que garde le château, nous l'attaquerons or Quoi que garde le château, nous l'attaquerons? Inter change able|talk to me 18:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle que soit la question could be translated as "WHATEVER THE QUESTION may be...", while Quoi que tu fasses could be translated as "WHATEVER you do...". Notice that the first "whatever" is in apposition (or perhaps an even closer grammatical relationship) with a noun, while the second "whatever" isn't in apposition with anything. As for the other, how about "Ceux qui gardent le château, nous les attaquerons"...? -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean "in opposition with anything"? And ceux qui garde sounds as if you are talking to the people who guard the castle, not rallying the troops. Inter change able|talk to me 18:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical "apposition" is a linguistic term referring to a specific phenomenon. And in modern French, "Ceux qui gardent le château" above is far more naturally understood as a topic phrase in a topic-comment construction, rather than as a vocative clause... AnonMoos (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]